Community Schools Incentive Initiative - osse · Community Schools. Incentive Initiative. External Evaluation Report . Completed by: MN Associates, Inc. September 30, 2016. FY16 POH

Community Schools Incentive Initiative

External Evaluation Report

Completed by: MN Associates, Inc. September 30, 2016

FY16 POH Q41 Attachment - Community Schools Evaluation


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction and Background ............................................................................................................ 2

About the Evaluation .......................................................................................................................... 2

About this Report ................................................................................................................................ 3

To What Extent Was CSII Implemented as Planned? ................................................................... 4

What Were the Promising CSII Practices? ....................................................................................... 4

What Were the Challenges? ................................................................................................................ 7

What, If Any, Was the Impact of the CSII Grant? ......................................................................... 9

Key Takeaways ................................................................................................................................... 10

Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 11

References ........................................................................................................................................... 13

Appendix ............................................................................................................................................. 14

Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................................. 16

1



Introduction and Background

The Community Schools Incentive Initiative (CSII) Grant Program was launched in 2013-14 school

year (SY) with the passage of the Community Schools Incentive Act of 2012 by the District of

Columbia Council as a proven, effective approach to address system-wide challenges facing at-risk

students attending public schools in the district. The legislation empowered the Mayor to “establish

and administer the multiyear” program by awarding multiyear grants to eligible applicants to partner

and establish no fewer than five new community schools with 1) a focus on mental health prevention

and treatment, 2) to schools with at least 60% of the student body labeled as at-risk, and with the

focus on improving student academic outcomes (DC Code § 38-754). Six community school

partnerships were awarded, and the program was piloted in SY2013-14 at:

DC Scholars at Stanton Elementary

Edgewood/Brookland Family Support Collaborative Community School Consortium at

Jefferson Academy and Amidon-Bowen Elementary School

Latin American Youth Center (LAYC) Community Consortium

Mount Pleasant Community Schools Consortium

Partnership Achieve, and

Roosevelt Community School.

In SY 2014-15, two more partnerships were awarded—Communities in Schools of the

Nation’s Capital and LAYC/Cardozo Community School.

About the Evaluation

The CSII legislation originally stipulated that a Community Schools Advisory Committee

would meet at least annually to review and evaluate the annual progress of the CSII grant program

and the award grantees. In place of an evaluation tool and annual reviews, and in consultation with

Community Schools Advisory Board, the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE)

shifted toward hiring a third-party evaluator to conduct an evaluation study of the program. In July

2016, OSSE contracted MN Associates, Inc. (MNA) to conduct an evaluation study and report on

their findings by September 30. The evaluation was to look at both the implementation and the

impact of the program. The study was guided by the following research questions:

1. To what extent was CSII implemented as planned?

2



2. What were the promising practices?

3. What challenges did the grantees face during the implementation of CSII at the school sites?

4. What, if any, was the impact of the grant on the following academic outcomes:

a. Improved student attendance

b. Improved behavior at school

c. Improved academic performance in reading and math, and

d. Reduced dropout rates and improved graduation rates?

MNA utilized a mixed methods approach in tackling the evaluation of CSII. MNA relied on

multiple sources of data to identify themes and trends. These sources included including document

reviews; site visits to all eight grantees with observations and conversations with key OSSE staff,

grantee staff, school staff, parents, students, and service providers at the sites and follow-up calls as

needed; attendance at a CS Advisory Board meeting with subsequent conversations with advisory

members; surveys, and other extant data. Details about the research approach of the evaluation are

available in the Appendix.

All data collected over the course of the evaluation were aggregated and no personal

identifiers were used in the report. Due to the small and select sample of participating grantees,

findings should be considered exploratory, descriptive, and non-conclusive. Findings can only be

ascribed as those pertaining to the participating grantees and thus further extrapolation of any data

results are limited to the grantees and the CSII program.

About this Report

The remainder of this report discusses findings from the data collected over the course of

evaluation, taken from July to September 2016. While the evaluation covers all three years of the six

pilot grantees and the first year of implementation for the second-round grantees, most of the focus

has been on the latest data available, which, with a few exceptions, was SY 2015-16. The findings are

organized and reported in response to the research questions as described above.

3



To What Extent Was CSII Implemented as Planned?

OSSE IMPLEMENTATION

The program was implemented at two levels: at the OSSE and at the grantee level. At the

OSSE level, the program was implemented as planned. OSSE monitored the program, with OSSE

staff members conducting site visits mid-year and at the end of the school for the grant in in SY

2015-16. OSSE collected mid-year and end-of-year reports for each grantee. Coinciding with the

report submissions, OSSE staff conducted site visit at the mid-year and end-of-year mark. OSSE

provided technical assistance the grantee, and facilitating best practices across each site. The

Advisory Board convened four times in SY 2015-16 and as of September 30, 2016, has convened

once for SY 2016-17. For the end-of-year site visits, a few members of the Advisory Board joined in

visits.

GRANTEE IMPLEMENTATION

In general, the CSII Program was implemented as planned at each of the grantee sites

though with some varying degrees of implementation. Some of the variance resulted from the two

rounds of grant awards. Other sources of the variance in degrees of implementation were the local

contexts in which the grant was developed and enacted. As of the start of the SY 2016-17, all

grantees have a Community Schools Coordinator (CSC) in place. Needs assessment have occurred

periodically, and new partnerships have formed and new programs and activities have taken place as

a result of the needs assessment. Grantees were expending funds as needed and monitoring their

expenditures through OSSE’s online Enterprise Grant Management System.

What Were the Promising CSII Practices?

Looking across all eight grantees, common promising practices—as well as localized

promising practices—were observed. Both common and localized practices covered three domains:

program activities, program processes and procedures, and overarching governance or organizing

structure.

PROGRAM ACTIVITIES

Home visits: Several of the grantee sites have either worked previously or are currently

working with Flamboyan Foundation to help improve their school-parent/family ties. At least two

grantees have conducted extensive home visits in which, teachers and school staff were trained to

4



engage students, parents, and family members of their students in open-ended dialogue in order for

the teachers and school staff to get to know the students and their families better. Typically, the

home visits are conducted in the students’ residences, but parents and students may choose a neutral

setting such as a local restaurant or café to have the visit. The purpose of the home visits is to build

relationships outside the school setting. The home visits were typically held over the summer or

during the early part of the year. For CS program staff and school faculty and staff, home visits have

been successful ice-breakers. For one Latino parent, it demonstrated to her that the school cares

about her child and her family and encouraged her to be involved, despite her limited English

proficiency. Teachers have remarked that home visits have given them insights into their students’

lives that they would otherwise not see. The home visits also have prompted early referrals to other

services that the parents and their students can avail. Two CSII grantees in particular—

—have been working to reach the goal of 100% home visits each school

year. Last year they were within the 70 to 80% range.

Mental and physical health screening, referrals and services1: One of the key wrap-

around services that the community schools provide is on-site mental, physical, and/or well-being

care. Service referrals and services rendered all increased, particularly for mental health, in part

because of the ease of having it on-site. One parent remarked how she

really liked that her child can see the school mental health provider so easily, which helped cut down

on her students absences. A school psychologist, who is in partnership with the school and provides

services on-site at , shared that because he sees the students on a regular basis, he is able

to also share (within HIPAA and FERPA limits) and counsel teachers of the student when a positive

or negative behavior may be expected.

Regular schoolwide activities that promote seat-time attendance:

holds weekly, monthly and seasonal activities and celebrations at both

campuses that engage students, parents, and teachers and incentivize students to show

up to school on time. Coupled with a Check and Connect program that most of the grantees also

subscribe, some of the highest attendance rates in the district: 90.8% for the

high school, 93.4% for the middle school, and 94.8% for the elementary school.

Neighborly engagements: For , providing weekly backpacks of food for their

lowest income students to take for the weekend in partnership with the Blessings in a Backpack

program and Transitions Healthcare has bloomed into a true neighborhood engagement. The

partnership facilitated relationships to build among residents and staff at the healthcare facility and

1 Physical screening for this report includes vision and dental care.

5



with the faculty, staff and students. Furthermore, a few parents of students later secured

employment at the facility. Another example is The grantee

uncovered as part of their needs assessment that there were no commercial laundromats in their

schools’ ward. Lack of clean school uniforms is a barrier to school attendance. Collaborative

launched a laundry program (with a washer and dryer at each school campus)—at

—that will allow students’ families and neighborhood families to utilize the

dedicated laundry room to meet their clothes washing needs.

Home-grown youth enrichment and development initiatives: Both

have also supported homegrown activities and partners that aim to support youth

development and address truancy and other attendance issues. have partnered with Gearin’

Up Bicycles, which cultivates experiential learning and self-confidence among at-risk students

through the process of learning the skills of repairing bicycles. Similarly partnered with Oye

Palaver Hut, Inc. to cultivate performing arts and culinary talents, and impart health and well-being

through nutrition and exercise. Through the CSII grant helped support one teacher’s

initiative to establish a positive character development program for boys, a Kings club. At

high school site, a peer mentoring program has developed and

grown in which upperclassmen mentor underclassmen. The peer mentors helped guide their

“younger charges” away from negative behaviors, promoted positive behaviors, provided peer

support and contributed to the school’s community building. Peer mentors gained stature and self-

confidence and self-efficacy through their mentorship. One peer mentee has been motivated to

become a peer mentor once he becomes a junior.

PROGRAM PROCESSES Data sharing MOUs: One of the challenges that will be covered later in this report

involves accessing data. One promising practice emerging as a result of the grant program has been

the formulation of memoranda of understanding (MOU) over data sharing. has instituted an

MOU beginning with at the —

—in order to receive timely, accurate and comprehensive

information of students touched by the grant.

Participation in regular school team meetings: Grantee staff members from

convened regularly with school teams responsible for attendance, behavior, etc.,

and coordinate activities and services accordingly to ensure that the students remain on track

academically and in their overall well-being.

6



OVERARCHING GOVERNANCE OR ORGANIZING STRUCTURE

Tiered system of support: All the CSII grantees generally follow—whether explicitly like

or implicitly like —Response to Intervention’s (RtI) tiered

system of support for truancy prevention and intervention. Tier 1 is considered schoolwide, Tier 2 is

reserved for group interventions, and Tier 3 is for the most acute and difficult cases that require one-

on-one counseling.

Results-driven mission and vision: A clear vision and mission articulated through a logic

model, linked to performance outputs and outcomes, focused the attention of the work at

and helped drive them forward. This is

especially telling for of implementation.

Strong institutional connectedness: Several grantees were in school sites located in large

Latino and immigrant population. took advantage of

the circumstances to strengthen wraparound services through the grant tailored to the Latino and

immigrant population. The result was that the partnership garnered such a loyal following that

parents and students endured the temporary moved to the while the school

building underwent renovations. The principal reported a 99% re-enrollment rate for SY

2016-17 and 94% teaching staff retention rate.

Strong leadership and partnership: Having a strong supportive leader at the helm of the

school and of the CSII implementation at the site helped insure not only fidelity to the initial plan but

also drew support across the school and community. As has shown the principal

championed the CS concept, at first tentatively, but after being partnered with an enthusiastic CSC

became an ardent supporter. Their strong leadership and partnership grew to change the school

climate and dynamics of the school and community.

What Were the Challenges?

As in all programs, there is never a perfect implementation story. However, some CSII

grantees faced significant obstacles.

Leadership and staff turnover: Turnovers at any institution slow the momentum toward

change and progress. In the cases of , turnover of

principals slowed down CSII implementation as grantees were required to cultivate buy-in and

support from newly installed principals who were not aware of the partnership or the grant before

their assignments. For it was felt more acutely, since had

7



five principals in four years. The program had great difficulty gaining traction, which was further

exacerbated by a move to temporary facilities while the school building underwent

renovations. The lack of strong principal leadership made data-sharing across partners difficult and

getting parents support even more challenging. Moreover, OSSE experienced staff turnover too,

which interrupted monitoring practices with the grantees and engagement with the Advisory Board

members.

Lack of parent engagement: The majority of the grantees had non-existing or tepid

parental engagement at their school sites. This made it challenging to meet the requirement of having

a local community school advisory board to work in tandem with grantee partners. Lack of parental

engagement often meant tepid community engagement as well, which made it harder for school and

grantee partners to help students at academic and/or behavioral risks.

Lack of coordination with existing multiple partners at the school site: The grantees

began implementing CSII at school sites with existing, multiple partners in the building. Without

further support and authority from a principal, the grant itself was seen as another funding stream

with commensurate staffing and activities in a school. As a result services provided at the school

appeared as muddled layers of overlapping services by service providers that may have competing

agendas. Some CSII staff experienced mission creep as a result.

Inadequate data systems and data sharing practices: A majority of the grantees were ill-

prepared to collect, analyze and report data that would determine how well their program is

progressing. Their data systems were not built to collect certain data, and the personnel were not

trained to diligently collect data beyond the Tier I and sometimes Tier II support. Further

exacerbating the situation is the grantees inability to acquire timely, accurate, and complete data from

the school due to perceived privacy issues.

Out-of-boundary catchment of students and public transportation limits: In a number

of schools, a significant percentage of students do not live in the neighborhood. In the case of

80% to 85% of students reside outside the neighborhood. This means logistically

that it takes longer for students to arrive at school and be at their seats by the time the first period

bell rings. The problem becomes even more complex when students and their families rely on public

transportation, and are beholden to the vicissitudes of traffic in the District during morning rush

hour and unreliable service of Metro trains. Finally inclement weather further exacerbates the

situation such that schools like experienced high percentage of unexcused

absences from students after rain and snow storms have ended.

8



What, If Any, Was the Impact of the CSII Grant?

A handful of six pilot grantees were able to report on the impact of the grant. They are

presented below:

: Over 99 PreK elementary children were enrolled in early childhood

program with their parents. Most recent data showed that 100% of those children who were enrolled

for the full academic year at met or exceeded expectations as measured by GOLD Literacy and

97% met or exceeded expectations as measured by GOLD math. The students were also at the 97%

and above as measured by GOLD Social Emotional Learning. Their parents are doing just as well.

The adult students experienced growth in reading, writing, and oral skills as measured on the

CASAS assessments. Table 1 shows the percentage of students making progress at each ESL

(English as A Second Language) level.

Table 1: CASAS assessments on English language proficiency

Level Percent Making Level Progress

ES 84

ES 87

ES 83

ES 75

ES 51

ES 40

Furthermore, adults were moving toward post-secondary education training and

employment. According to their end-of-year report, “76% of students in the labor force entered

employment or post-secondary education/career training. 89% of students in the labor force retained

employment or entered post-secondary education/career training” ( End-of-Year

Report, 2016).

: Students enrolled in the programs initiated through the CSII grant showed

marked improvement. For example, students in grades K through 2 who were enrolled in the People

Animal Love afterschool program (N=103) had a 93% attendance rate exhibited greater average

growth than their non-participant peers in the MAP assessments for English language arts (36% vs.

31%) and in math (55% vs. 44%). They also showed more dramatic growth from beginning of the

year to the end of year than their non-participant peers (27 percentage-point gain vs. 15 percentage-

point gain) in reading proficiency. For older students involved with City Year afterschool, they also

witnessed dramatic growth. City year participants in ELA interventions (N=95), they saw a 35

percentage-point jump from beginning of the year to the end of the year. Their counterparts’ growth

9



was less dramatic: 17 percentage points. In math 63% of City Year participants (N=81) met their

growth targets while only 52% of non-City Year participants met theirs.

In terms of behavior, students whose parents and teachers met at least three to four times in

academic parent teacher teams (APTT) averaged 5.3 suspension referrals compared to 7.3 suspension

referral of those whose parents did not take part in APTTs.

: SY 2016-17 began with 96% of students re-enrolling, an

eight percentage point increase from SY 2015-16. All 55 seniors (Class of 2016) graduated and 96%

were accepted to a 2- or 4-higher education institution. Furthermore, all eight of the seniors who

participated in the wellness Transitional Workshop (addressing anxiety and other wellness concerns

as they move away and go to college), were accepted into college. High school students receiving Tier

III attendance interventions (N=10) experienced some notable positive changes from first to third

quarter as measured by the number of unexcused absences, grade point average (GPA), and number

of suspensions. All ten saw increases in their GPA ranging from a modest .1 to 2.3. Seven out of ten

saw decreases in the number of absences, one from a high of 12 down to three unexcused absences.

Three saw also drops in the number of suspensions, while the rest stayed the same, though most

have had no suspensions in the first quarter.

Key Takeaways

To summarize the findings from the evaluation, the following points drive the change

process that CSII has made throughout its implementation:

A shared vision and stable distributive leadership with both principal and CSC is important

for leading the change effort. The principal and the CSC are critical change agents for the school

and surrounding community.

While leadership stays intact, other partnerships change over time as needs change.

Common partners like Flamboyan, Mary’s Center, Kids Hour, etc. provide opportunities for

shared practices and common language and coordination.

There is some convergence in the types of partnerships (limited, coordinated, collaborative)

to the degree of implementation. High implementers end up moving beyond a coordinated

partnership to a collaborative partnership. The partners co-own the problems and the successes

of the collaboration, which is characterized by interdependence and collective governance (Hora

& Millar, 2011).

10



Home visits are a critical leverage point to draw out teachers to where their students and their

families are and to build relational trust and common understanding. Home visits are critical

bridge-building strategies, especially for at-risk students and families.

Local contexts, existing capacity and interpersonal relationships shape the nature of CSII

as played out in each site.

Discussions on sustainability are underway but involved no more than looking for funding

streams to replace CSII.

Recommendations

As OSSE and the DC Council consider the next steps for CSII, the findings above reveal ways

that the organization can continue to improve, evolve, and expand the program:

Revise future grant competition to be five-year grants, with a Year 0 for planning.

The planning year should last at least the first six months of the grant with a percentage of

the award set aside for planning. Planning should include devising MOUs (particularly data

sharing), establishing data systems, processes and procedures, staff training, etc. in place.

Ensure that the plan to be implemented is align with district and school plan goals, with

commensurate performance measures and indicators.

Have clear start and end dates of the grant with guaranteed minimum levels as a

percentage of current budgeted year to aid grantees in planning for each year.

Set clear expectations in the application, with a theory of change, inputs, outputs,

short-term and long term outcomes, with indicators and expectations and

measurable performance measures and/or targets.

Hold both school sites and CSII partner grantees mutually accountable for results

from CSII grant funded outputs and outcomes.

Begin sustainable conversation in Year 1 and continue throughout the remaining

years. Toolkits are available from Ohio Afterschool Network and other public sites.2

Institutionalize the Community Schools Coordinator position through reallocation of

the school budget, but ensure that no teaching or other administrative responsibilities

added to the current job description. This will help avoid mission creep.

2 https://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Other-Resources/Family-and-Community- Engagement/Models-for-Family-and-Community-Engagement/Planning-for-Sustainability.pdf.aspx

11


https://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Other-Resources/Family-and-Community-Engagement/Models-for-Family-and-Community-Engagement/Planning-for-Sustainability.pdf.aspx

https://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Other-Resources/Family-and-Community-Engagement/Models-for-Family-and-Community-Engagement/Planning-for-Sustainability.pdf.aspx


Ensure that data systems are in place by the end of Year 1, if not already established.

Change parental and engagement strategies to direct the school personnel out to the

parents and the community instead of the reverse.

Reframe the Community Schools Advisory Board for OSSE as a "critical friend” such

that they are more active partners to the initiative.

Expand academic enrichment and youth development to open students to wider

possibilities in their future through career academies, career and technical education

(CTE), and dual enrollment and certification with community colleges through stacked

and latticed credentialing so that students will have a roadmap from high school to post-

secondary education and careers in technology-heavy growth sectors.

12



References

Chen, H. T. (1990). Theory-driven evaluations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Chen, H. T. (2005). Practical program evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Hora, M. T. &, Millar, S. B. (2011). A guide to building education partnerships. Navigating diverse cultural contexts to turn challenge into promise. Sterling VA, Stylus, Publishing, LLC.

McLaughlin, J. A., & Jordan, G. B. (1999). Logic models: A tool for telling your program’s

performance story. Evaluation and program planning, 22(1), 65-72.

O’Sullivan, R. G., & D’Agostino, A. F. (2002). Promoting evaluation through collaboration with community based programs for young children and their families. Evaluation, 8(3), 1-16.

Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

13



Appendix

Community Schools Incentive Initiative Program Evaluation Research Design

MN Associates, Inc. (MNA) completed the evaluation of the program using a theory-based

approach to study program design. This orientation applied a systematic process for defining what an

educational innovation or intervention (e.g., Community Schools Incentive Initiative Program) is

expected to do, in order to achieve desired teaching and learning outcomes and the process by which

those impacts are realized (Chen, 1990, 2005; McLaughlin & Jordan, 1999). Program design and

implementation was based on assumptions—explicit or otherwise—held by program designers and

stakeholders about how specific actions were expected to mitigate an identified problem. Chen

(2005) defines program theory as being simultaneously descriptive and prescriptive, with a resulting

focus on identifying action-oriented explanations of program assumptions, inputs/processes, and

activities. See Figure 1. The theory of action aligns with the Coalition of Community Schools logic

model and framework for student success.

Figure 1: Standard Theory of Action

In MNA’s experience, theory-based evaluation is better able to: (a) assess impact both holistically

and as influenced by separate program elements; (b) provide feedback for ongoing program

improvement; and (c) inform program replication and scale-up. MNA believes this conceptual

position complements both OSSE and its approach to providing thorough program evaluation

services.

All of MNA’s evaluations apply a collaborative evaluation approach (O’Sullivan & D’Agostino,

2002) that treats project staff and participants as partners in data collection activities, rather than as

subjects of research. MNA also adhere to tenets of Patton’s (1997) utilization-focused evaluation to

address how people in real-world programs experience the evaluation process and are able to put

14

Long-Term Outcomes



findings into practice in ways that meet their knowledge and use needs. These theories were put into

practice, as MNA completed the CSII program’s evaluation activities.

15



Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the following who have helped in making the evaluation of the program

possible:

Office of State Superintendent of Education (OSSE)

Yuliana Del Arroyo, Director of Special Programs, Division of Elementary, Secondary, and

Specialized Education

Melissa Harper-Butler, Program Analyst, Special Programs Unit

Community Advisory Board Members

Raymond Davidson, Director, Child Family Services Agency

Audrey Williams, Manager, Intergovernmental Relations & School Support (Designee)

John-Paul C. Hayworth, Executive Director, DC State Board of Education

Barbara Parks, Clinical Program Administrator, Department of Behavior Health

Deborah Carroll, Director, Department of Employment Services

LaQuandra Nesbitt, Director, Department of Health

Keith Anderson, Director, Department of Parks and Recreation

Carla Mike, Coordinator, School Partnerships, District of Columbia Public Schools (Proxy)

Jennifer Comey, Senior Policy Advisor Data Analysis, Office of the Deputy Mayor of Education

(Designee)

Rachel Joseph, Chief of Staff (Office of the Deputy Mayor of Health)

Antoinette Mitchell, Assistant Superintendent of Postsecondary and Career Education, OSSE

Mae H. Best, Executive Director, East River Family Strengthening Collaborative

Keith Gordon, Chief Operating Officer, Fight for Children (Designee)

Grant Elliott, Program Director, Kid Power, Inc. (Designee)

Jamila Larson, Executive Director, The Homeless Children’s Playtime Project

Elizabeth Davis, President, Washington Teachers’ Union

Stephanie Crane, Director of Programs and Data, Communities in Schools at J.O. Wilson

Elementary School (Proxy)

Joan Yengo, Vice President for Programs, Partnership Achieve: E.L. Haynes and Mary’s Center

Community Schools Initiative

Karen Feinstein, Executive Director, Roosevelt Community School

Mary Kingston Roche, Director of Public Policy, Coalition for Community Schools

Sheryl Brissett Chapman, Executive Director, The National Center for Children and Families

Timothy Johnson, Vice President of Community Impact, United Way of the National Capital Area

Gail Sullivan, Parent Representative, Communities in Schools at J.O. Wilson Elementary School

We would also like to thank those who have shared valuable information and have taken time out of

their very busy schedules to complete the surveys, participate in the site visits, engage in formal and

informal discussions, and share pertinent program information:

16



Communities in Schools of the Nation’s Capital

Heidi Haggerty, Principal

Stephanie Crane, Director of Programs and Data

Emily Peltzman Bottegal, Community Schools Coordinator

Marvin Perry, Director of Finance and Operations

DC Scholars at Stanton Elementary

Rena Johnson, Principal

Christie Atlee, Community Schools Coordinator

Edgewood/Brookland Family Support Collaborative

Carmen Robles-Inman, Program Director

Kristine Dupree, Program Manager

Jane English, Community Schools Coordinator

Felicia Ball, Program Coordinator

Rickell Smith, Finance Manger

Latin American Youth Center Community Consortium

Kynai Johnson, Program Manager

Carolyn Greenspan, Community Schools Coordinator

Latin American Youth Center/Cardozo Community School

Kynai Johnson, Program Manager

Estephany Brito, Community Schools Coordinator

Shayna Sholnick, Director of Promotor Pathway

Victor Budasoff, Promotor/Case Manager

Edward Ready, Senior Grants Accountant

Mt. Pleasant Community School Consortium

Justine Cortez, Early Childhood Family Case Manager, DCPS

Raquel Farah-Robison, Student Services Coordinator, Briya PCS

Judy Kittleson, Adult Education Coordinator, Briya PCS

Christie McKay, School Leader, Briya PCS

Stephanie Mintz, Community Schools Coordinator

Art Mola, Principal, Bancroft Elementary

Carmelita Naves, Mental Health Therapist, Mary’s Center

Cara Sklar, Director of Research and Policy, Briya PCS

Partnership Achieve: E.L. Haynes and Mary’s Center Tia Brumsted, Director of Student Wellness, E. L. Haynes Iliari Gutierrez, Community Schools Coordinator

Tania Hindert, Senior Director of Programs, Mary’s Center

17



Roosevelt Community School Karen Feinstein, Executive Director

Marvin, Ochoa, Community Schools Coordinator

Disclaimer Notice

There are no copyright restrictions on this document. However, please cite and credit the source

when using any part(s) of this document. Please inform the main author before using or

disseminating any part(s) of the report for research/work or before sharing. The opinions expressed

herein do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of OSSE and no official endorsement by

OSSE should be inferred.

MN Associates, Inc. www.mnassociatesinc.com

For any and all questions related to the report, please contact the main author at

[email protected] or via phone 703 803 7271 (work) or 571 723 3247 (cell).

18


http://www.mnassociatesinc.com/

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Community Schools Incentive Initiative - osse · Community Schools. Incentive Initiative. External Evaluation Report . Completed by: MN Associates, Inc. September 30, 2016. FY16 POH